Subscribe to The Horn Book


>Barring funerals, pretty much the only time I hear from my now far-flung McNally relatives is when the Red Sox are doing well at whatever it is they do. Which, I guess, they’ve done. Honestly, I feel like I should trade houses with my California (or Delaware, Maryland . . .) cousins, because while I live a scant three miles from Fenway Park, the only reason I even check the game schedule is to find out if we’re going to have trouble parking for the movies. I went to a game once, forty-five years ago with my Cub Scout troop (oops, I automatically spelled that troupe, how gay is that?) and all I remember is that we got popcorn in little cardboard megaphones. But I’m glad my family is happy.

I’ve got a three-way going on with Jules and Eisha, the gals of Seven Impossible Things Before Breakfast, reviewing Perry Moore’s Hero; check it out.

Going to New York for a few days to see Elizabeth and attend a memorial celebration for Lloyd Alexander; tonight I’ll be dining with the Child_Lit crowd, bloggers Betsy, Cheryl and Monica among them. That should be particularly lively as the list is currently divided among* those who think J. K. Rowling is a hero for her recent revelation re Dumbledore, those who think she is a publicity-seeking fame whore, and those like myself who haven’t read Book Seven and are just staying out of the whole thing.

* Joanna Rudge Long recently called me on following between with three things. Is it really wrong?

Roger Sutton About Roger Sutton

Roger Sutton has been the editor in chief of The Horn Book, Inc, since 1996. He was previously editor of The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books and a children's and young adult librarian. He received his M.A. in library science from the University of Chicago in 1982 and a B.A. from Pitzer College in 1978. Follow him on Twitter: @RogerReads.



  1. >In my proofreading life I am willing to let some things go (split infinitives are not necessarily wrong, sentence-ending prepositions can be your friends), but “between” vs. “among” is one distinction I insist on. I guess it’s the “tween” part, signifying “two”: once you put a third thing in there, you’ve compromised the geometry.

    P.S. Yooooooooooooouk!

  2. Kelly Fineman says:

    >I believe once you’ve got three things, it’s “among”, not “between”. But I could be wrong.

  3. Roger Sutton says:

    >Yes, “among” is definitely correct for more than two, but sometimes it seems too amorphous when you are describing three things at odds with one another. “I’m choosing between chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry” sounds more clear to me than “I’m choosing among chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry.”

  4. >So do I say, then, that I enjoyed the three-way among us? Amongst us? Anyway, I did. Thanks again, Roger. And, sure, I’ll take that cigarette now.

  5. Ellen Klages says:

    >Well, with the ice cream example, I could make a case that you’re not so much choosing among the three of them as you are choosing *between* several pairs of choices: vanilla vs. chocolate; okay, chocolate. Now, chocolate vs. strawberry, etc.

  6. >I recently got called out on this one when I was editing a Greek myth. I said the Three Gray Women had one eye between them. Oops.

    As for Dumbledore-I’m more than in favor of gay characters, but show me the evidence of this from the beginning. If you don’t plant the seed early on, you can’t just shove it in at the end. I wonder if this will be an issue when Rowling creates her Encyclopedia of characters. Will she be inserting information about the characters that has no evidence in the books? Just as Tolkin had that annoying appendix that told of Aragon’s love affair with Arwin?

  7. Andy Laties says:

    >Rowling created a fantasy universe so naturally we should assume there’s a lot of background material she developed that didn’t make it into the seven books. Probably an enormous amount! (Some historical background appears already in the form of flashbacks to Harry’s parents’ youth.)

    I’ve read a fair amount of the now-published Tolkien background material; I find it fascinating. The appendices he published during his lifetime constituted a very small sampling.

    Lots of people enjoy this sort of literary production. Perhaps Rowling is planning to release some sort of “historical” book — or an encyclopedia — and is planting the seeds for this in the public imagination, through “revelations”. Such a “fact-based” pre-marketing approach would distract future buyers from focusing on Harry himself. Inevitably he’d be a peripheral presence in any such “Hogwarts’ World” books Rowling might be planning to publish. Whereas, for instance, Dumbledore might be a heroic figure whose audience can be built up through “leaks”.

  8. Elizabeth says:

    >The Red Sox thing is the least of it, Roger. You lived within spitting distance of Wrigley Field for years and never attended a Cubs game. God, I loved that ballpark.

    Anyway, I edited a book by Dan Gutman years ago called “Baseball’s Biggest Bloopers.” We were able to include my favorite joke. It went “A few days after the ’86 series, Bill Buckner was so depressed he decided to kill himself. He went to Park Street and jumped in front of a subway car entering the station…unfortunately, the train went between his legs.

  9. >I’m among the among crowd on that issue, but I’m with you on the sporting event attendance thing: I grew up less than a mile from Kinnick Stadium at the University of Iowa and never once set foot in the place.

    But I did read In the Year of the Boar and Jackie Robinson when it was first serialized in Cricket, so let it not be said that I have no love for games.

  10. >see you tomorrow night.

  11. Anonymous says:

    >of course it should be “among” but more inportant, why hasn’t it occurred to any of you how much free publicity Rowling is getting by her “spontaneous” revelation to a possibly planted question?

  12. Anonymous says:

    >maybe because Rowling needs publicity like a fish needs a bicycle?


  13. >*cries a little*

    Go Indians! Forever!

  14. >Go Red Sox!

    That’s a great Bill Buckner joke but it belongs to the pre 2004 Sox era. Ill have to go find the Gutman
    book on the shelf.

  15. >On the subject of between and among, among should be used for more than two items UNLESS the items much all be considered individually. So the three grey women had one eye between them, because they were indistinct from one another, but you choose between chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry because they are distinct choices. Also, among and amongst mean the same thing.

Comment Policy:
  1. Be respectful, and do not attack the author, people mentioned in the article, or other commenters. Take on the idea, not the messenger.
  2. Don't use obscene, profane, or vulgar language.
  3. Stay on point. Comments that stray from the topic at hand may be deleted.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through (though some comments with links to multiple URLs are held for spam-check moderation by the system). If you see something objectionable, please let us know. Once a comment has been flagged, a staff member will investigate.

We accept clean XHTML in comments, but don't overdo it and please limit the number of links submitted in your comment. For more info, see the full Terms of Use.

Speak Your Mind